"Against other things it is possible to obtain security. But when it comes to death we human beings all live in an unwalled city." - Epicurus
I don't like Epicurean ethics. They're well put together, but the hedonist core of that philosophy seems morally reprehensible. I suppose there's no good objective argument to self-fulfillment, so I won't go down that road. There are contradictions in the philosophy, however, and the most recent chapter illustrates that.
Epicurus valued friendship, declaring that not only did such a relationship contribute to pleasure, but that is should be uniquely valued as producing a special sort of happiness. It is equally clear that later followers of Epicurus agreed with his stance, though his critics pointed out the obvious contradiction with an egocentric philosophy. Nonetheless, Epicurus's view on death is that it is a welcome respite from the aggravation of living. Death is the cessation of both pleasure and pain - it should not be feared. Yet, if friendship is a value, why should we not value life for the opportunity it gives us to provide friendship to others? The main argument for Epicureanism is that a life lived well is defined independently of duration. A man who enjoys his life has lived a good one, whether it be 30 years long or 70. But those 40 extra years could provide a young man an entirely lifetime of happiness through finding an enlightened friend - how can that not be thought of as a good? I realize Epicurus was not concerned with the good beyond oneself, but this oversight seems glaring.
Another point - Lucretius, an Epicurean, declares that living to prolong one's life is a bad decision. He ranks living in moderation as equal to denying oneself pleasures, and thus in the Epicurean tradition, refusing to live a 'complete' life. His claim can easily be reduced to absurd conclusions. Would he look favorably upon a child who lives the best life he can - and dies before his tenth birthday due to bad habits? For instance, immunizations cause us pain when we get them, but for an inestimable benefit later. Would Lucretius have opposed vaccinations? On the other side of the spectrum, what of an elderly man who spends a week every year at the doctor's office so he can live an additional twenty years. Surely giving up a week of your time to waiting is no Epicurean good - but twenty extra years? I have a feeling Epicureans would favor the first scenario but oppose the second, but I see them in much the same light.
This all being said, there were many positive, thought-provoking comments sprinkled throughout this penultimate Epicurean chapter. "Here on earth, the life of the foolish becomes hell." - Lucretius
I don't like Epicurean ethics. They're well put together, but the hedonist core of that philosophy seems morally reprehensible. I suppose there's no good objective argument to self-fulfillment, so I won't go down that road. There are contradictions in the philosophy, however, and the most recent chapter illustrates that.
Epicurus valued friendship, declaring that not only did such a relationship contribute to pleasure, but that is should be uniquely valued as producing a special sort of happiness. It is equally clear that later followers of Epicurus agreed with his stance, though his critics pointed out the obvious contradiction with an egocentric philosophy. Nonetheless, Epicurus's view on death is that it is a welcome respite from the aggravation of living. Death is the cessation of both pleasure and pain - it should not be feared. Yet, if friendship is a value, why should we not value life for the opportunity it gives us to provide friendship to others? The main argument for Epicureanism is that a life lived well is defined independently of duration. A man who enjoys his life has lived a good one, whether it be 30 years long or 70. But those 40 extra years could provide a young man an entirely lifetime of happiness through finding an enlightened friend - how can that not be thought of as a good? I realize Epicurus was not concerned with the good beyond oneself, but this oversight seems glaring.
Another point - Lucretius, an Epicurean, declares that living to prolong one's life is a bad decision. He ranks living in moderation as equal to denying oneself pleasures, and thus in the Epicurean tradition, refusing to live a 'complete' life. His claim can easily be reduced to absurd conclusions. Would he look favorably upon a child who lives the best life he can - and dies before his tenth birthday due to bad habits? For instance, immunizations cause us pain when we get them, but for an inestimable benefit later. Would Lucretius have opposed vaccinations? On the other side of the spectrum, what of an elderly man who spends a week every year at the doctor's office so he can live an additional twenty years. Surely giving up a week of your time to waiting is no Epicurean good - but twenty extra years? I have a feeling Epicureans would favor the first scenario but oppose the second, but I see them in much the same light.
This all being said, there were many positive, thought-provoking comments sprinkled throughout this penultimate Epicurean chapter. "Here on earth, the life of the foolish becomes hell." - Lucretius
